Richard Lepsius, a biography

by Georg Ebers

To many of our readers the words “Sothiac cycle” and “year of Sirius” will be but empty sounds. We will therefore give an explanation of them, in accordance with our promise to be intelligible even to the general reader. Let us adhere as closely as possible to the statement of Lepsius himself!—In the Egyptian heavens was visible a sidereal phenomenon which in a very remarkable manner corresponded perfectly, except for a mere trifle, to the Julian year of three hundred and sixty-five and a quarter days. It continued for more than three thousand years, and in fact was precisely coeval with the duration of the Egyptian empire. This was the heliacal rising of Sirius; that is, the reappearance of Sirius, the brightest fixed star, before sunrise. For a time this star was invisible, on account of its rising simultaneously with the sun. The early rise of which we speak occurred regularly one day later at the expiration of every four (civil) years of three hundred and sixty-five days, which was the simple basis on which the Egyptian calendar had been established at an early period. Thus when the New Year’s day of the fixed year of three hundred and sixty-five and a quarter days fell upon the first of the New Year’s month (Thot) of the civil year of three hundred and sixty-five days, then, after four fixed years, it fell upon the second of the New Year’s month, Thot, after 2 × 4 upon the third, after 3 × 4 upon the fourth of Thot, and so on. After 365 × 4, that is, when, after one thousand four hundred and sixty fixed years, it had run through all the days of the civil year, the next New Year’s day of the fixed year fell once more upon the first of the New Year’s month Thot, and the two forms of the year had thus readjusted themselves, so that one thousand, four hundred and sixty fixed years of three hundred and sixty-five and a quarter days were exactly equivalent to one thousand, four hundred and sixty-one civil years of three hundred and sixty-five days. We cannot here take cognizance of the slight error which resulted from the fact that the true solar year does not exactly amount to three hundred and sixty-five days and six hours, but only to three hundred and sixty-five days, five hours, forty-eight minutes and forty-eight seconds; nor can we now speak of the compensation therefor. In any case, it follows from what has been said that the Egyptians, during their whole history, had in their year of Sirius, computed according to the heliacal or early ascension of that star, the most perfect sidereal model ever possessed by any nation for their simple annual reckoning of the year of three hundred and sixty-five and a quarter days. Therefore Lepsius is right when he maintains that the Egyptians had a perfectly exact astronomical period in the Sothiac cycle of 4 × 365; that is, in the one thousand, four hundred and sixty years of Sirius, during which the civil year, shorter by a quarter of a day, readjusted itself by being renewed one thousand four hundred and sixty-one times.

Thus closes, on page 240, this full and noble introduction. The review of the authorities then begins. After a preliminary survey of these, Herodotus and Diodorus undergo a searching criticism, which proves the uselessness of these authors for chronological purposes. In the subsequent chapters Lepsius exerts himself to show the relation of the Egyptian to the ancient Hebrew chronology, and he rightly applies to the Biblical reckoning the same rules of criticism which he has employed in regard to that contained in secular writings. In so doing he proceeds on the sole tenable principle that the truth discovered in the course of the healthy development of any science cannot be opposed to Christian truth, but must rather promote it. “For all the truths in the world,” he says, “have from the very beginning presented a union and solidarity against all untruth and error. But in order scientifically to separate truth from error in any department, theology possesses no other method than that which belongs to every other science; namely, rational and cautious criticism. Whatever this may affirm, it is only possible to amend or refute by a criticism which is still better and more cautious.”

To him, as to us, the practical religious significance which the Old Testament must have for every Christian reader, seems to have no connection with the recorded dates regarding early periods of time of which the authors and compilers of those Scriptures could have had no exact knowledge, except by means of a purposeless inspiration.

“Science must be pursued with reverence and freedom.” With these beautiful words of Bunsen, Lepsius agreed, and he demanded reverence for all that was venerable, holy, noble, great and well-proved, and claimed freedom wherever it was a question of attaining and declaring the truth and his own conviction thereof. This noble principle he also impressed upon his disciples, and we would like to recall it to the memory of those younger men who, in our day, so readily absolve themselves from all that goes by the name of “reverence,” and hold themselves so much the greater and stronger if they can succeed in shaking that which is established, in detecting a blemish upon greatness, or discerning a spot upon the source of light. They have received criticism as an inheritance; but there is only too good foundation for the complaint often repeated by Lepsius, that by them the noblest of all weapons is wielded sacrilegiously, and with special delight for the purposes of destruction. They can learn from the Master, who prescribed the method for a whole science, and aided to erect its mighty edifice, that it is possible to practise reverence and gratitude, and yet maintain one’s own opinion with manly independence, and attack error with the sharpest criticism.

The last and perhaps the most important portion of the “Chronology” is occupied with Manetho and the authorities which can be traced back to him, and also with the relation of these authorities to each other. A special chapter is also devoted to Eratosthenes and Apollodorus.

This work embraces the whole foundation of Egyptian chronology, and indicates the methods according to which all chronological investigations, no matter in what direction, should be conducted. The detached historical-chronological researches on special subjects[70] which followed the “Chronology” are so many model specimens of the consistent application of this method.

In the “Chronology” itself the fine and thorough humanistic training of its author is manifested in a specially happy manner. There are modern scholars who, as students, confine themselves to their special provinces, and, peasant-like, do not look beyond the space where they plow and sow and reap. These may learn from Lepsius how, without straying too far afield, it may yet be possible to establish a connection between that which they themselves have gained, and the acquisitions which have been made in other and kindred departments of science. They may observe how details can be treated in the most thorough and fundamental manner, without losing cognizance of the whole. Lepsius was an able philologist, linguist, archaeologist and historian, before he became an Egyptologist. From an acquaintance with the main principles of science, and from broad generalities, he descended gradually and without a break to a knowledge of the separate parts. Vulgar learning amasses the material of knowledge, and leaves all that has been thus acquired heaped together in confusion; genuine learning proceeds from the general to the special, connects the details with the whole, and always subjects the former to the latter. It was thus that the scientific activity of Lepsius was exercised, and if we inquire what it was that elevated him above even the most industrious and ingenious of his fellow workers, we find that he owed his lofty position to his truly scientific method of development, research and work. This makes his productions a true system of learning, in contrast with the knowledge amassed by so many others who have labored without regard to the general principles animating the whole.

Thence, too, it results that his “Chronology” is available for every purpose, and is employed as a guide and source of instruction, not only by the Egyptologist, but also by every historian who wishes to devote himself to the study, either of the chronology of all nations, or of any special people. Although many of the details of this work may have become disputable and untenable in consequence of the latest advances of science, yet for all time to come it must remain the starting point whence all investigations in this domain are forced to proceed.

In spite of the manifold and profound researches on which this work was based, and in spite of the time and strength demanded by the editing of the “Monuments,” Lepsius, during the years following his return to his native land, himself superintended the embellishment of those rooms in the new museum at Berlin which were destined to hold the Egyptian collection. He also attended personally to the arrangement and cataloguing of the collection. He took peculiar pleasure in this work, and pursued it with indefatigable zeal.

The aged Passalacqua, a man eager for knowledge, had gone to Egypt in the capacity of a merchant, and had afterwards made himself acquainted, as a dillettante, with the discoveries and works of Champollion. He now filled, “conscientiously and with pleasure to himself,” the post of superintendent of the collection of monuments and relics which he had brought from the Nile. Frederick William IV. in buying his collection had taken him with it into the bargain; no one wished to remove him from his position, and thus it came to pass that Lepsius could only be appointed co-director in 1855, and it was not until 1865, that he was appointed chief superintendent.